CCTV and Parking Enforcement

Government has proposed abolishing the use of CCTV to enforce traffic and parking regulations. London Councils believes that, not only will this impact on borough efforts to keep London moving, but may also have damaging consequences for local CCTV provision, leading to unintended impacts on wider crime reduction and community safety activity. This briefing sets out the background to this issue and highlights efforts to persuade the government to think again.

Overview

The government has signalled its intent to restrict the use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) to enforce parking and traffic regulations. Launching a consultation on the issue in December 2013 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said:

“We want to rein in these over-zealous and unfair rules on parking enforcement, so it focuses on supporting high streets and motorists, not raising money. Parking spy cameras are just one example of this and a step too far. Public confidence is strengthened in CCTV if it is used to tackle crime, not to raise money for council officers.”

London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee has responded to this consultation rejecting the government’s characterisation of local authority parking enforcement activity and making the case for the use of CCTV in keeping traffic moving and streets clear.

If the government gets its way then there are also likely to be unintended consequences that directly impact on community safety and crime reduction. CCTV is a non-statutory service. London boroughs face a reduction in funding of nearly 40 per cent over the period of this Parliament.

Many councils are having to make hard choices to protect vital statutory services and the government’s proposals may leave them with no option but to either partially or fully withdraw CCTV provision. This would have a significant impact on the evidence collection and enforcement activities of the police and wider community safety initiatives.

London Councils has pressed the government to reconsider its position and raised the issue with the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC). This briefing sets out the background to this concern and reflects on the wider fact that local authority finances are now so tight that top down intervention runs the very real risk of destabilising local finances and undermining hard-fought, locally-agreed service priorities. Analysis

There are approximately 10,000 CCTV cameras operated by London boroughs across the capital. Provision ranges significantly between councils, with Haringey operating 52 cameras and Wandsworth operating over 1,200.

These devices support a variety of activities including parking and traffic enforcement, community safety, estate management and crime reduction. In particular, there is strong evidence to suggest CCTV plays a vital role in supporting the work of the police. For example, in Hackney, as a result of joint CCTV and police operations during December 2013, 170 arrests were made and £15,500 worth of stolen vehicles recovered.

Over the past four years net revenue expenditure on CCTV has averaged approximately £530,000 per borough. In 2012/13, the most recent year for which figures are available, net revenue expenditure ranged from £1.4 million in Hounslow to £130,000 in Richmond. On average, employee costs account for approximately 34 per cent of gross expenditure on local CCTV services.

Funding for London borough CCTV services comes from a variety of sources including: local authority finances raised through council tax and business rate retention; re-charges to local authority housing revenue accounts; and, income generated through penalty charge notices (PCNs).

Local authority CCTV is a non-statutory service. Many boroughs have expressed serious concern about their ability to fully fund statutory services, particularly those relating to adult social care and vulnerable young people. As such, borough CCTV provision risks becoming financially unviable and being either fully or partially withdrawn. This would result in a significant loss of evidence-reporting infrastructure for the police, impacting on arrest levels and wider community safety initiatives.

There may be opportunities to minimise the loss of service through reconfiguration and greater cross-agency integration. However, funding is likely to remain scarce. Rules relating to local housing revenue accounts mean that the scope for recharge is limited to those cameras providing coverage of local authority housing estates. And the government has already indicated it is likely to scrutinise carefully the use of public health integration funds.

A further source of service cross-subsidy is provided by income generated through penalty charge notices for parking and traffic violations. While local authorities are prohibited from using PCNs as a means of raising revenue they do help support the CCTV infrastructure required for effective enforcement. Such support reduces the marginal cost of offering wider CCTV provision within a borough and plays a part in sustaining its operation.

In December 2013, the Departments for Transport and Communities and Local Government announced a joint consultation on local authority parking enforcement. As part of a wide-ranging set of questions this proposed abolishing the use of CCTV cameras for parking and traffic enforcement.

London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) has responded to this consultation arguing that CCTV plays a vital role in enforcing traffic and parking regulations, noting the wider role devices used for the purposes of traffic enforcement play in maintaining community safety and advising caution in taking forward changes that could potentially destabilise the funding mix used to support this service.

However, London Councils remain concerned that the wider implications of the government’s proposals and their potential unintended service impacts have yet to be fully recognised.

Commentary

For many who work closely with London boroughs, the government’s assertion that CCTV is being used to unfairly penalise motorists simply won’t ring true. In a city like London, councils have a responsibility to keep the streets clear and the traffic moving. Motorists may not like being penalised, but city-wide gridlock is unlikely to be a more popular prospect. Similarly, the assertion that local authorities are reluctant to support local businesses or maintain vibrant high-streets would strike most as a depiction out of step with the realities facing local communities and an unfair caricature of local decisions and priorities.

London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee has outlined a number of practical reasons for using CCTV rather than relying on street enforcement by traffic wardens. It is simply neither practical nor possible to achieve comparable levels of enforcement through increased staff levels and regulations are only worthwhile if they can be enforced.

More than this however, the government’s intervention suggests a failure to carry out sufficiently joined-up thinking. CCTV, like many local public services is funded through a variety of means. Revenue generated through Penalty Charge Notices for parking and traffic violations has played a role in cross-subsidising camera infrastructure and running costs. Prohibiting the use of CCTV in enforcing parking and traffic regulations will not only shift the burden towards the increased use of wardens, but also choke off an important part of the funding mix.

London Councils is talking to the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime, with a view to aligning approaches to persuading the government to think again and take more account of the potential impact its proposals relating to parking are likely to have on CCTV’s role in tackling crime. We hope for a positive outcome, but the challenge this issue presents may simply be the tip of the iceberg.

Local authorities continue to bear the brunt of the government’s reductions in public spending. The next 18 months promise hard decisions and the withdrawal of many popular local services. While some have raised the possibility that these changes call into question the viability of local government, the expectation in London is that boroughs will continue to work with the widespread support of their communities to make savings and deliver vital public services.

To do this requires confidence in funding levels, freedom to make robust decisions. In many cases, borough books are finely balanced and while top-down intervention can never be ruled out, there is increasingly little scope for accommodating cost-shunts and revenue squeezes from the centre.

London local government plays a vital role in offering a platform for economic growth and an environment for communities to thrive. Reductions in funding have eroded their ability to do both.

CCTV provision is important to communities and represents a high-profile non-statutory service which delivers significant wider benefits to public partners, most notably the police. Its operation entails a tight-knit of resources and roles and exemplifies the position of local authorities as providing services that help weave communities together. The government should be careful that in seeking to pull the plug on CCTV’s role in traffic and parking enforcement it doesn’t unintentionally unravel a great deal more.

Author: Philip Clifford, Policy and Project Manager (T: 020 7934 9792) Click here to send a comment or query to the author

Links: Local authority parking strategies - consultation London Councils’ response to consultation (Leaders’ Committee)

This member briefing has been circulated to: Portfolio holders and those members who requested policy briefings in the following categories: Transport, Crime and Public Protection